Need help with some German military technical terms

[Astaran]

Hey mp.net,
I have a question for our German speaking members who served/serve in the Bundeswehr:
My googleskills are somehow broken and I can't find the "official" or correct technical terms in German for two kinds of fire missions:

"fire for effect": "Wirkungsfeuer" or "Wirkungsschießen"? A fire mission or fire fight with the intent to kill, harm or destroy the enemy.

"surpressive fire" means "Unterdrückungsfeuer", "Unterstützungsfeuer" or "Deckungsfeuer"? A fire mission to surpress the enemy so friendly forces can move unopposed.

I know it is always extremely difficult to use modern terms on ancient warfare, especially since the terms describe fire missions for the artillery and not for other types of "ranged weapons" like bows or javelins. But it still sounds better than saying something like "The Persians used their archers in two ways: Firstly to surpress and harras the hostile forces and secondly, to wound or kill them". Unfortunately the HDV 100/900 about "terms for leadership" ("Führungsbegriffe") of the Bundeswehr is probably rated "VS-NfD" and can't be downloaded as a PDF, so I can't look up the correct vocabulary myself

For now I wrote "Wirkungsfeuer" and "Unterdrückungsfeuer" in my thesis, but it would be nice to know if these terms are indeed "officially correct". Since one of my professors is officer in the reserve and it would be embarrassing to use the wrong vocabulary

Any help would be much appreciated.

[picanha the second]

I think what you mean with Deckungsfeuer is Sperrfeuer maybe?


Here a link to zDV 64/10 for searching abbreviations and if you can get the 3/11 you may find all things relevent for Gefechtsdienst etc.

http://www.pumakompanie.de/HTML_dat/...eien/64_10.pdf


Edit: Wirkungsfeuer sounds familiar as in Waffenwirkung which is a common used term.

[Astaran]

I think what you mean with Deckungsfeuer is Sperrfeuer maybe?


Here a link to zDV 64/10 for searching abbreviations and if you can get the 3/11 you may find all things relevent for Gefechtsdienst etc.

http://www.pumakompanie.de/HTML_dat/...eien/64_10.pdf


Edit: Wirkungsfeuer sounds familiar as in Waffenwirkung which is a common used term.

Thanks!

As far as I know "Sperrfeuer" is a fire mission to deny the enemy his freedom of movement: When I am in the defensive: to inflict casualties on the advancing enemy; when I am in the offensive: to prevent enemy reinforcements from reaching the contested position.

In my context the "fire mission" intents to keep the enemy in cover (of his shields), so the Persian troops can advance freely at the enemy (to outflank him for example or to cover the attack of the cavalry).

I don't know what you mean with "Waffenwirkung" in this context. I used "Wirkungsfeuer" to describe a type of "fire mission" which intents to kill or wound as many enemy troops as possible prior to an attack. Not just to surpress them, but to actually reduce the amount of enemy combattants for the following melee battle.

[picanha the second]

It is a long time ago but I think that Sperrfeuer is also used for enabling friendly troops movement => Deckungsfeuer

Because there is always the talk about "Waffenwirkung im Ziel" I thought that the process would then be Wirkungsfeuer. But I doubt that there is the command to lay "Wirkungsfeuer" on sth. Maybe they say stuff like Feuerüberfall auf xxxx in xxxx time.


I only have infantry experience so I don't know the exact terms for artillery use.

[JCR]

Generally the difference between "Feuer" and "Schießen" in military german is that "Schuss" is a ordered engagement of a distinct target while "Feuer" is fire at will (also at a distinct target).

[Marsch]

Fire for effect is translated with Wirkungsfeuer but I don't know if you understand how it's used correctly. Artillery support is called and one round with smoke is fired to check if it lands at the correct spot (that's called "fire for range" AFAIK). If that's the case the observer will call for "fire for effect". So it's actually not a description for a single or special type of fire support but the call to start firing what ever is the case.

I'd translate surpression fire (as the correct term should be) with Unterdrückungsfeuer.

Maybe helpfull...

NATO also recognises several different types of fire support for tactical purposes:

• Counterbattery fire: delivered for the purpose of destroying or neutralizing the enemy's fire support system.
• Counterpreparation fire: intensive prearranged fire delivered when the imminence of the enemy attack is discovered.
• Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms.
• Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action.
• Final Protective Fire: an immediately available prearranged barrier of fire designed to impede enemy movement across defensive lines or areas.
• Harassing fire: a random number of shells are fired at random intervals, without any pattern to it that the enemy can predict. This process is designed to hinder enemy forces' movement, and, by the constantly imposed stress, threat of losses and inability of enemy forces to relax or sleep, lowers their morale.
• Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point.
• Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position.

These purposes have existed for most of the 20th century, although their definitions have evolved and will continue to do so, lack of suppression in counterbattery is an omission. Broadly they can be defined as either:

• Deep supporting fire: directed at objectives not in the immediate vicinity of own force, for neutralizing or destroying enemy reserves and weapons, and interfering with enemy command, supply, communications and observation; or
• Close supporting fire: placed on enemy troops, weapons or positions which, because of their proximity present the most immediate and serious threat to the supported unit.

Two other NATO terms also need definition:

• Neutralization fire: delivered to render a target temporarily ineffective or unusable; and
• Suppression fire: that degrades the performance of a target below the level needed to fulfill its mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artille...cation_of_fire

[Astaran]

Thanks guys!

I will rewrite the part of the thesis and remove the incorrect terms. No need to make the same mistakes as a dumbass journalists who yells "Tank!" everytime an APC rolls by or "Machinegun!" for an ancient MP5 model Wrong is wrong, plain and simple

[pocoloco]

But you are using the modern terms for something that Persians did, I think your first post contained the right answer:

"The Persians used their archers in two ways: Firstly to surpress and harras the hostile forces and secondly, to wound or kill them".

Expand on those rather than use modern artillery terms or how are you going to work the connection between ancient Persian tactics and use of modern terms and further on, justify the use of modern terminology?

[kevlar308]

Unlike the way that modern archers (sport or hunting) use bows, ancient archers were often used very much like artillery. They tended to fire at large targets (massed troops in the open) long range (for them) and used volley fire. The downrange effect would have been pretty similar to modern indirect weapons, albeit much less destructive. One can imagine the effect of 100 archers firing three shots apiece in quick succession. It would obviously come out to 300 projectiles, coming down in a plunging fire type angle, all landing within maybe a hundred feet of each other.
It is worth mentioning that the standard UK armor to protect troops from artillery (Brodie/Mark I/ Tommy helmet, etc) was a direct copy of a medieval helmet.